3 ms·

> always careful to avoid putting a number on it Why assume it is them being dodgy? Perhaps it is really hard to put a number on it. What number would make me

• BeetleB 9y ago
  >Why assume it is them being dodgy? Perhaps it is really hard to put a number on it. >What number would make me risk my life on a low-shoulder highway in the middle of the night with my son in the back seat? I have no idea, but I can tell you it is not in the ballpark you are discussing. As you say, you yourself do not know your tolerance threshold (and that's OK). So it's futile to use it in decision making unless you do put a number on it. As for the difficulty of putting a number on it - I don't know, as I have not tried. But do you think you could find out if you're willing to pay $1000? Just because you can't put a number on it doesn't mean you have to pay $10K more. There are intermediate options. >Maybe you've never suffered significant financial loss due to a breakdown, but can you guarantee no one ever will? I know people who have paid a lot of money due to cheap cars dying much earlier than expected. Looking a those in isolation, the cheap car was more expensive than the newer car. But that's all part of the insurance mindset, which is to think in terms of probabilities. If I buy a cheap used car from a reliable brand every 7-8 years, do I expect all of them to end up being disasters? No. Do I expect none of them to be disasters? No. I expect I probably will end up with a bad car from a financial standpoint one day. But the amount I'll save over all those other cars that turned out fine will more than compensate. I won't get upset - it's all part of the strategy. I think what I'm trying to get at is everyone points to the person who bought a cheap used car that ended up dying within a year or two and point at how wasteful that was. Yet few people point to those who buy much newer cars and talk about how bad that decision was. Purely from a financial standpoint, both are bad decisions. Yet society tends to think only one of them is. >And there's more to it than finances, obviously... Sure, there's peace of mind and comfort. And if you're open about it, that's fine. I often see people justifying it as being cheaper or "almost the same as used car when you factor in repairs". I think my goal in this thread is to highlight that if you do your research, that statement is just not true.
• BeetleB 9y ago
  >Why assume it is them being dodgy? Perhaps it is really hard to put a number on it. >What number would make me risk my life on a low-shoulder highway in the middle of the night with my son in the back seat? I have no idea, but I can tell you it is not in the ballpark you are discussing. I should add: While you don't know the number, it's not as nebulous as you may think. If you paid $10K more to get a newer car that you think is safer, we know it's at least $10K. If I offered you a car that costs $40K more than your current one and convinced you that your son will have a 50% lower chance of injury/death than your current car. Will you pay for it? What about $100K? Let's not kid ourselves. Everyone has a number. It may be hard to tighten the bound, but it does exist. There will be a price point where for a 50% reduction you'll say "You know what? I'll take the risk". Or even "You know what, I think the risk is low enough as it is in my car - a 50% reduction of a tiny number is not much of a gain" I do hope you will never respond with the latter, because you have no idea what that number is. Or at least realize that if you rationalize that way, so do people who buy cheap cars. They likely think the probability of serious injury/death for their son is not much different from a newer car.